Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 01:32 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 01:32
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3 
805+ Level|   Assumption|                  
User avatar
mimishyu
User avatar
Joined: 16 Aug 2019
Last visit: 03 Oct 2025
Posts: 136
Own Kudos:
101
Given Kudos: 51
Location: Taiwan
Schools: Harvard '24 Booth '24 Kellogg '24 Wharton '24 Columbia CBS '24
GPA: 3.7
Schools: Harvard '24 Booth '24 Kellogg '24 Wharton '24 Columbia CBS '24
Posts: 136
Kudos: 101
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on 28 Apr 2020, 02:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
varotkorn
Dear MartyTargetTestPrep AjiteshArun ChiranjeevSingh VeritasKarishma egmat,

I have 2 doubts on choice C. described below:

DOUBT 1. We don't need to assume that that the vehicles that get ticketed actually exceed the speed limit, right? (IMO, because choice C. EXPLICITLY states that)

If we need to assume that the vehicles that get ticketed actually exceed the speed limit, then that means we think that the information in choice C. is inaccurate or the test writer lied about it, right?

DOUBT 2. The passage only talks about the number of VEHICLES. It doesn't anywhere mention the number of TICKETS, right?

DOUBT 3. In relation to DOUBT 2, choice C. DOES NOT mean that there are at least some vehicles fitted with radar detectors, which were ticketed more than once, right?

Choice C. says The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit (let's say X) > the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors.

Let's say:
Total number of vehicle = 100 -> Vehicles that are fitted with radar detectors = 3
The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit (X) = 6
Vehicles that are fitted with radar detectors, which were ticketed = 33% of 6 = 2

Therefore, it is entirely possible that the vehicles with radar are each ticketed only once, right?
Show more

the wording in this question stimulus is very complicated, and I thought the best way to this kind of percentage problem is by using the concept of "set" in math, or else if we use "statements" to try to explain will confuse a lot

for (C), try, by using the concept of "set" to draw up and find a situation in which (C) cannot stand

let's assume 1000 drivers/vehicles --- 30 vehicles with radar
number of vehicles ticketed for exceed speeding ---30 /25/20
here its logic to assume this number can equal or less (no greater then)than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors
in this set 30/ 25/ 20 ,33% have radar while 67% no radar, thus the no. of vehicle with radar 10/ 8/ 7...
so here we really could find a situation which (C) cannot hold
….(C) incorrect


same, its better for us, by using probability & algebra(x/y), to infer the idea that "vehicles with radar are more likely(not equal likely) to get a ticket" since its hard for us to use wording to express this, and this is the idea I was quite perplex about at first

lets calculate as thus...

we assume
total number of vehicles: 100y
total number of vehicles receive ticket: 3x
x y can be any number, also 100y must always bigger than 3x, in other word, 3x is a subset in 100y


the probability for receive ticket
with radar: 1x /3y
without radar: 2x/ 97y
to put aside (not to consider) x/y
here its easily to see the set with radar 1/3 will ALWAYS bigger than the set without radar 2/97

thus "vehicles with radar are more likely(not equal likely) to get a ticket"
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,986
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,986
 [2]
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on 22 May 2020, 04:12
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
varotkorn
Dear MartyTargetTestPrep AjiteshArun ChiranjeevSingh VeritasKarishma egmat,

I have 2 doubts on choice C. described below:

DOUBT 1. We don't need to assume that that the vehicles that get ticketed actually exceed the speed limit, right? (IMO, because choice C. EXPLICITLY states that)

If we need to assume that the vehicles that get ticketed actually exceed the speed limit, then that means we think that the information in choice C. is inaccurate or the test writer lied about it, right?

DOUBT 2. The passage only talks about the number of VEHICLES. It doesn't anywhere mention the number of TICKETS, right?

DOUBT 3. In relation to DOUBT 2, choice C. DOES NOT mean that there are at least some vehicles fitted with radar detectors, which were ticketed more than once, right?

Choice C. says The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit (let's say X) > the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors.

Let's say:
Total number of vehicle = 100 -> Vehicles that are fitted with radar detectors = 3
The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit (X) = 6
Vehicles that are fitted with radar detectors, which were ticketed = 33% of 6 = 2

Therefore, it is entirely possible that the vehicles with radar are each ticketed only once, right?
Show more

varotkorn: If the vehicle got ticketed for over speeding, then it did over speed. One wouldn't get a ticket for over speeding without over speeding else the entire social fabric falls apart.

It is irrelevant how many tickets each vehicle got.
We are clearly dealing with "number of vehicles that got ticketed" and not with "number of tickets".

Say there are 10,000 vehicles. 3% of them have radar detectors i.e. 300 vehicles have radar detectors.
9,700 do not have radar detectors.

Say there were 100 vehicles ticketed. 33 of these had radar detectors and 67 did not.
33/300 = 11% of vehicles with radar detectors were ticketed
67/9700 = .69% of vehicles without radar detectors were ticketed.

Conclusion: Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly

Data shows that higher %age of drivers (vehicles) that have radar detectors get ticketed.
We are concluding that these vehicles that are ticketed (whether 3 or 100 tickets each) are the ones that exceed speed limit regularly.
What if those with radar detectors speed very rarely but get caught because they get worried and start behaving erratically? So our assumption is that the ones getting the tickets are the ones speeding regularly.
That is option (B)

As for option (C), it is not an assumption.
(C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors.
It doesn't need to be true. In our example, it is not true and still our example holds.
The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit = 100
the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors = 300
User avatar
saby1410
User avatar
Joined: 06 Feb 2017
Last visit: 10 Jun 2025
Posts: 183
Own Kudos:
23
Given Kudos: 93
Location: India
Posts: 183
Kudos: 23
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on 04 Oct 2020, 12:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
LogicGuru1
please explain in your way this question
User avatar
CEdward
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Last visit: 14 Apr 2022
Posts: 1,203
Own Kudos:
272
Given Kudos: 332
Posts: 1,203
Kudos: 272
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on 21 Jan 2021, 01:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A recent report determined that although only three percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.

The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions?


(A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not.
-this is an odd assumption that just goes in the opposite direction of the passage …weakens the argument…the conclusion is predicated on this idea that the vehicles ticketed more often carried the detectors

(B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.
Correct! The conclusion would be ruined if this were not true…

(C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors.
-this just tells us something that we already know: “thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them”…clearly that suggests that there was a higher # of vehicles that were caught speeding relative to the number of those caught with a detector

(D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report.
-this weakens the argument…double…triple counting in play..
-e.g. Suppose the report had 10 incidents but one guy was responsible for half of those incidents …we can’t then conclude that drivers in general are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly…maybe it was just that one person

(E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state highways not covered in the report.
-irrelevant comparison

Please give me a kudos if you like my reasoning.
avatar
rishabhaditya
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2020
Last visit: 22 Mar 2022
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 2
Location: India
Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Harvard '24 HKUST IESE '24 Kellogg '24 McCombs '24 NTU Said '23 Tuck '24 Warwick "23 Wharton '24 Yale '24
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V28
Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Harvard '24 HKUST IESE '24 Kellogg '24 McCombs '24 NTU Said '23 Tuck '24 Warwick "23 Wharton '24 Yale '24
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V28
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on 14 Nov 2021, 20:28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TommyWallach
Hey All,

I can explain that difference! Let's take this from the top.

A recent report determined that although only three percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.

Conclusion: Driver with radar exceed the speed limit more than those with no radar.
Premise: 3% of drivers have radar. 33% of ticketed vehicles have them.
Assumption: Something else about the radar doesn't make you more likely to get ticketed. Speed = tickets.

The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions?
(A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not.
PROBLEM: This is the opposite of what we want. The people with radar are clearly getting tickets MORE often than those who do not.

(B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.
ANSWER: This is dangerous, because most people ASSUME this already (if you get tickets more, it's because you're speeding more). But remember this is the GMAT, we cannot assume this. We can't jump from "more tickets" to "more speeding", as much as our logic nodes may want it.

(C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors.
PROBLEM: We don't need to assume this to make our conclusion. Try negating it, and seeing if that destroys the conclusion (this is a way to test correct assumptions). "The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was NOT greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors." So what? It could still be true that people with radar are speeding more.

(D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report.
PROBLEM: Even if this might work, it's the OPPOSITE of what we'd want. We'd want to assume that these people were only ticketed ONCE, because if the same person was ticketed multiple times, he might only be one person, in which case the conclusion doesn't work. But the negation of this is: "Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were NOT ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report." That HELPS the argument, see? Now we can possibly infer that there are MORE PEOPLE with radar speeding, because there are no duplicates.

(E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state highways not covered in the report.
PROBLEM: Who cares about stuff outside of Maryland?

Hope that helps!

-t
Show more

Hello Experts,

I got this one incorrect as in my mind I was thinking the below, although the statement didn't actually say that.
However, can you confirm if the statement had been as below, would I be right in choosing this one?
Please help.


Many of the vehicles [b]with radar detectors that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report.[/b]
User avatar
behlmanmeet
User avatar
Joined: 25 Apr 2019
Last visit: 13 May 2023
Posts: 79
Own Kudos:
77
Given Kudos: 28
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37 (Online)
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V39 (Online)
GMAT 3: 740 Q50 V40
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 3: 740 Q50 V40
Posts: 79
Kudos: 77
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on 30 Dec 2021, 16:53
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A recent report determined that although only three percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.

The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions?

Solution: This question just reminds me how important it is to read carefully and attentively each and every word. The overall argument and conclusion are pretty straightforward. But this one word changes the argument from a simple occurrence to a habit or a trait. "Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not." Pay attention to the word "regularly". The evidence or premise just mentions a report and its observation. But the report doesn't mention for how long were the drivers under observation. Were the Maryland highways and their drivers randomly observed for a few days and then observations drawn? or Were they under observation for a long period of duration and then observations drawn? Now, why is this important? Because the conclusion says "regularly". You will not say you play basketball regularly if you just played for the last two days. "Regularly" emphasizes a habit, a trait, a general occurrence and we need some consistent occurrences for a period of duration for an occurrence to be called a regular occurrence.
Also, Always remember that the assumption in a sense is true to the premise and also strengthens the conclusion. Does it necessarily have to strengthen the conclusion? No. But it does not weaken it also.

(A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not.:" This just goes opposite to the premise. But we don't know who these drivers are? Are they the same drivers who were reported in the argument or this statement is just stating drivers in general? Although the conclusion draws a statement about drivers in general, we cannot drive or support the conclusion with the given answer option.

(B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.: While this is word-to-word directly supporting the conclusion, It can make a reader anxious or skeptical. Can an answer be so obvious? Well, what I can tell you is obvious is that GMAT question makers are some tricky folks. It's like they read Art of War to write some of these questions. Even if we cannot certainly say this is right or are a bit skeptical, it's alright. Keep this answer in check and move on to eliminate others.

(C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors.: This is clearly inconsequential. You can take numbers and try them out. It does not have any effect on the conclusion. Even if "The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was not greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors" what of it. How does it affect the conclusion?

(D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report.: Now, remember the statement I have mentioned above about how the assumption does not weaken the conclusion, this is where we can apply it. If the given answer option is true then the report is not fair to draw the conclusion. If the drivers were ticketed more than once, then it can totally change the conclusions drawn. The force of evidence weakens, we cannot draw the conclusion with credibility now. The negation of the assumption must weaken or destroy the conclusion but the non-negated assumption itself must not weaken or destroy the conclusion.

(E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state highways not covered in the report.: This is similar to option D. Because the report was on Maryland drivers but the conclusion is more general, the conclusion losses some credibility if the condition of Maryland highways is different from other highways. Also, in the conclusion, our focus is more on drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors. So, we need an assumption that sheds more light on that.
User avatar
behlmanmeet
User avatar
Joined: 25 Apr 2019
Last visit: 13 May 2023
Posts: 79
Own Kudos:
77
Given Kudos: 28
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37 (Online)
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V39 (Online)
GMAT 3: 740 Q50 V40
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 3: 740 Q50 V40
Posts: 79
Kudos: 77
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on 30 Dec 2021, 17:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rishabhaditya
TommyWallach
Hey All,

I can explain that difference! Let's take this from the top.

A recent report determined that although only three percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.

Conclusion: Driver with radar exceed the speed limit more than those with no radar.
Premise: 3% of drivers have radar. 33% of ticketed vehicles have them.
Assumption: Something else about the radar doesn't make you more likely to get ticketed. Speed = tickets.

The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions?
(A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not.
PROBLEM: This is the opposite of what we want. The people with radar are clearly getting tickets MORE often than those who do not.

(B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.
ANSWER: This is dangerous, because most people ASSUME this already (if you get tickets more, it's because you're speeding more). But remember this is the GMAT, we cannot assume this. We can't jump from "more tickets" to "more speeding", as much as our logic nodes may want it.

(C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors.
PROBLEM: We don't need to assume this to make our conclusion. Try negating it, and seeing if that destroys the conclusion (this is a way to test correct assumptions). "The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was NOT greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors." So what? It could still be true that people with radar are speeding more.

(D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report.
PROBLEM: Even if this might work, it's the OPPOSITE of what we'd want. We'd want to assume that these people were only ticketed ONCE, because if the same person was ticketed multiple times, he might only be one person, in which case the conclusion doesn't work. But the negation of this is: "Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were NOT ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report." That HELPS the argument, see? Now we can possibly infer that there are MORE PEOPLE with radar speeding, because there are no duplicates.

(E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state highways not covered in the report.
PROBLEM: Who cares about stuff outside of Maryland?

Hope that helps!

-t

Hello Experts,

I got this one incorrect as in my mind I was thinking the below, although the statement didn't actually say that.
However, can you confirm if the statement had been as below, would I be right in choosing this one?
Please help.


Many of the vehicles [b]with radar detectors that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report.[/b]
Show more

Hi rishabhaditya
I am not an expert but hope I can help you with this. If I am understanding your question right. Your statement:

"Many of the vehicles with radar detectors that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report."

This statement actually weakens the conclusion because it points to a flaw in the report. See, the author is drawing a conclusion from the report, that if all things considered equal, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not. But your statement is pointing to something that shows that the conditions are not equal. It's similar to option D, it decreases the force of the evidence and makes the conclusion lose some credibility. If we want to compare two things and draw a general conclusion we need to keep things fair. If Many of the vehicles with radar detectors that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report , then it just explains why the report showed that thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with radar detectors and that this is not a general trend. I hope this helps.
User avatar
maelstrom93
User avatar
Joined: 12 Nov 2021
Last visit: 13 Nov 2022
Posts: 11
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 20
Posts: 11
Kudos: 1
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on 08 Jan 2022, 22:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Got it correct.
A D E are obviously wrong.
D E go beyond the scope of the text.
Comes to B and C.
C is an inference answer ie restating the conclusion
User avatar
hadimadi
User avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2022
Posts: 114
Own Kudos:
31
Given Kudos: 94
Posts: 114
Kudos: 31
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on 14 May 2022, 08:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi,

let y be the amount of vehicles ticketed, and x = (drivers with no radar + the amount of drivers with radar) = total drivers. We assume that each vehicle belongs to one driver (this is a realistic assumption to make). We get:

(1) Likelihood to exceed speed limit with radar: Driver caught who have a radar / total drivers with radar = (1/3*y)/(0.03x)= (1/0.09)*(y/x)
(2) Likelihood ... without radar: ... = (2/3*y)/(0.97x)= (2/(3*0.97))*(y/x)

When comparing both terms, we see that (1) will always be greater than (2). Let's negate (B):

Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limited are less than or equally likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than drivers who are not ticketed.
Combine this with the fact that the proportion of those who have a radar and got a ticket is greater than the proportion of those who don't have a radar and got a ticket. This means that a smaller proportion of those who have a radar is NOT ticketed when compared to the proportion of those who DON'T have a radar and are NOT ticketed. Since there are more people who don't have a radar, we can't conclude that people who have a radar are more likely to exceed speed limits regularly
User avatar
playthegame
User avatar
Johnson Moderator
Joined: 19 Jan 2024
Last visit: 28 Mar 2025
Posts: 423
Own Kudos:
635
Given Kudos: 146
Location: Canada
Concentration: Operations, Leadership
Schools: Johnson '27
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Johnson '27
Posts: 423
Kudos: 635
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on 27 Apr 2024, 20:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
Quote:
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, 33 percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.

The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions?
Well, if the conclusion is mentioned in the question itself, then I guess we should start by making sure we're 100% clear about the language in the conclusion:

    "...drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not."

Great. And since this is a runty little two-sentence passage, the evidence to support the conclusion is pretty straightforward:

    "...although only 3 percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, 33 percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them."

A few details of language jump out at me in this passage, though. For starters, the conclusion emphasizes that drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to actually exceed the speed limit regularly than drivers who do not. And it's interesting to me that the evidence focuses on the percentage of ticketed vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors.

So if we're looking for an assumption, then we probably will need something that connects the conclusion (i.e., that drivers with radar detectors actually exceed the speed limit regularly) with the evidence about speeding tickets. And as always, you can think of an assumption as something that not only strengthens or reinforces the conclusion, but also is necessary to draw that conclusion.

Quote:
(A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not.
(A) strengthens the conclusion: if drivers with the radar detectors are LESS likely to be ticketed than drivers without them, then the drivers with radar detectors must exceed the speed limit even MORE often than it initially seemed based on the argument.

Trouble is, the question isn't asking us to strengthen the argument; it's asking us to identify a necessary assumption. And we don't need to assume that drivers with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed than other drivers. After all, 33% of ticketed vehicles have radar detectors, while only 3% of all vehicles have radar detectors, so if vehicles with radar detectors are just equally likely to receive tickets when they exceed the speed limit, the conclusion could still hold. Heck, drivers with radar detectors could even be somewhat more likely to receive tickets -- and as long as the disparity isn't huge, the conclusion could still hold.

So we certainly don't need to assume that vehicles with radars are LESS likely to receive tickets. (A) is out.

Quote:
(B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.
This answer choice seems so lame and obvious -- of course you're more likely to exceed the speed limit if you receive more speeding tickets, right? -- that I kind of want to ignore it completely. But that would be a bad thing to do.

Let's come back to the argument: the conclusion says that people with radar detectors ACTUALLY exceed the speed limit more often than drivers without them, but the evidence in the passage only mentions the fact that vehicles with radar detectors receive a disproportionate percentage of TICKETS for speeding. So we absolutely do need to assume that drivers who receive tickets are more likely to actually exceed the speed limit. Otherwise, there's no connection whatsoever between the evidence and the conclusion.

So let's keep (B).

Quote:
(C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with the radar detectors.
There's no reason why we would need to assume this in order to draw the conclusion. We already know that 3% of drivers equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, and it doesn't really matter whether 6% of all vehicles or 2% of all vehicles receive speeding tickets: either way, it wouldn't change the fact (stated in the passage!) that vehicles with radar detectors receive a disproportionate percentage of those tickets. And more importantly, it wouldn't help us figure out whether drivers with radar detectors are more likely to actually exceed the speed limit.

So (C) is gone.

Quote:
(D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report.
(D) is kind of interesting, but it doesn't actually help us draw the conclusion.

For starters, we don't know which vehicles were ticketed more than once: if the vehicles with radar detectors were more likely to receive multiple tickets, then it would reinforce the idea that vehicles with radar detectors receive TONS of tickets. But it could also go in the other direction: if vehicles WITHOUT radar detectors were more likely to receive multiple tickets, then it would weaken the force of the evidence in the passage, and undermine the conclusion. For that reason alone, we could ditch (D).

And just as importantly: remember that the conclusion discusses the likelihood that drivers actually exceed the speed limit. (D) doesn't help us reinforce this conclusion at all, because it just tells us something about the number of tickets received for speeding.

So we can eliminate (D), too.

Quote:
(E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceed the speed limit more often than drivers on other state highways not covered in the report.
Who gives a crap? The entire scope of the passage is about drivers in Maryland, and the conclusion is concerned with differences in behavior between drivers with and without radar detectors in Maryland. Comparing Maryland drivers to non-Maryland drivers can't possibly have any impact whatsoever on the conclusion.

So we can eliminate (E), and (B) is the best answer.
Show more

Thanks, I ended up choosing option A and got this wrong.

I did not fully comprehend what B meant. To me B meant, that the ticketing event is itself driving speeding behaviour, meaning when I get a ticket I start speeding more and that did not make sense.....weird but not sure how I got that in my head, lol. So B's language was not very clear to me and it was confusing.

Thanks for your solution. I think it made my understanding of the question a little better.
­
User avatar
user1937
User avatar
Joined: 04 Apr 2024
Last visit: 27 Apr 2025
Posts: 69
Own Kudos:
46
Given Kudos: 24
Posts: 69
Kudos: 46
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on 12 Jun 2024, 08:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
­I think the reason for why (A) is incorrect is what GMAT Ninja posted. And not because it is opposite of what's happening like few others posted.
User avatar
MohdZaidKhan
User avatar
Joined: 23 Jun 2024
Last visit: 23 Sep 2025
Posts: 26
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 64
Location: India
Schools: Stanford '27 NYU Stern
Schools: Stanford '27 NYU Stern
Posts: 26
Kudos: 1
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on 16 Oct 2024, 11:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
stolyar
A recent report determined that although only three percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.

The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions?


(A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not.

(B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.

(C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors.

(D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report.

(E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state highways not covered in the report.
Show more

PREMISE 1 : 3% of Vehicle have RADAR DETECTOR .
PREMISE 2: 33% of TICKETED VEHICLE have RADAR DETECTOR .
CNCLUSION: drivers who equip their vehicles with RADAR DETECTOR are more likely to exceed the speed limit REGULARLY (MEANING IN THERE NATURE THEY ARE SPEEDY ) than are drivers who do not.
THE GAP IS EASILY VISIBLE : ANSWER SHOULD FILL THE GAP WHICH IS THE RELATION BETWEEN REGULAR SPEEDINESS AND TICKETED VEHICLE
Quote:
(A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not.RADAR DETECTORS AND TICKETING RELATION IS NOT WHAT WE WANT

(B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed. PERFECT! TICKETING AND REGULAR SPEEDINESS ARE RELATED HERE

(C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors. TICKETING AND RADAR DETECTORS' RELATION WE DONT WANT

(D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report. NO RELATION ESTABLISH BETWEEN CONCERNED VARIABLE .

(E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state highways not covered in the report.NO RELATION ESTABLISH BETWEEN THE CONCERNED VARIABLES
Show more
User avatar
Themightyknight
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jan 2024
Last visit: 15 Oct 2025
Posts: 95
Own Kudos:
37
Given Kudos: 14
GMAT 1: 610 Q47 V28
GPA: 4
WE:Real Estate (Manufacturing)
GMAT 1: 610 Q47 V28
Posts: 95
Kudos: 37
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on 17 Oct 2024, 02:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
i am confused with B & C ,

Since 3% of drivers are equipped with radars and 33% of them are ticketed
but concluded statating 3% will repeat the same mistake
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,781
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,781
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on 01 Nov 2024, 13:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Themightyknight
i am confused with B & C ,

Since 3% of drivers are equipped with radars and 33% of them are ticketed

but concluded statating 3% will repeat the same mistake
Show more
We attempted to explain each of the answer choices in this post: https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-recent-report-determined-that-although-only-3-percent-of-drivers-on-186145.html#p2002514. Check it out, and let us know if you have any follow-up questions.
User avatar
shreyans4757583
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2024
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 18
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 52
GMAT Focus 1: 665 Q84 V85 DI80
GMAT Focus 1: 665 Q84 V85 DI80
Posts: 18
Kudos: 1
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on 25 Oct 2025, 10:34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Premise - A recent report determined that although only three percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them.

Conclusion - Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.

Argument Breakdown - Let’s say there are 200 drivers on the streets of Maryland, out of these 6 people have radar detectors. These people represent 33% of people of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit. Based on this the author of the argument concludes that these 6 people regularly exceed the speed limit. This is very important as the author has concluded these are repeat offenders who constantly violate the speed limit.

Gap Analysis -

1) These 6 people might have only offended the speed limit once, consequently the report could have studied these offenders on only one single day.

The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions?


(A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not.

- Negation strengthens the argument as Radar detector drivers would be more likely to exceed the speed limit.

(B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.

- The word regularly makes this option correct as negation would say that the Radar detector drivers aren’t more likely to exceed the speed limit again destroying the argument

(C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors.

- Mostly irrelevant as this has zero impact on the argument even with the negation. This is a very clunky option, which makes me think this is why this question was discontinued.

(D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report.

- Interesting option as this says that a lot of vehicles were ticketed more than once in the time period, but ultimately irrelevant as many means more than 50 percent and using the numbers above, these many drivers could be the 10 people who weren’t equipped with Radar detectors.

(E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state highways not covered in the report.

- Irrelevant we aren’t concerned with comparison of rate of traffic violation between two states
User avatar
pankaj92
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2025
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 6
Given Kudos: 9
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 6
Kudos: 0
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on 26 Oct 2025, 01:01
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
What the argument says:

Only 3% of drivers have radar detectors.
But 33% of the vehicles that got speeding tickets had radar detectors.
So, the conclusion is:
Drivers with radar detectors are more likely to speed regularly than those without.


What is the question asking?
It’s asking:
What assumption must be true for this conclusion to make sense?
An assumption is something that must be true to hold the argument.

Let’s look at the answer choices one by one:
(A) Says radar detector users are less likely to be ticketed.

But the argument says they are ticketed more often. So this goes against the argument.
Eliminate
(B) Says:
People who get tickets are more likely to speed regularly than those who don’t get tickets.
This makes sense
The argument connects getting ticketed with regular speeding.
So if ticketed drivers are regular speeders, and radar detector users are often ticketed,
then radar detector users must be regular speeders.
Hold
(C) Talks about the number of ticketed vehicles vs radar detector vehicles.
This is just about numbers, not behavior. Doesn’t help the argument.
Eliminate
(D) Says many vehicles were ticketed more than once.
Interesting, but not necessary for the conclusion.
Eliminate
(E) Talks about other states.
The argument is only about Maryland, so this is irrelevant.
Eliminate

So Correct Answer is (B)

Because the argument assumes:

Getting ticketed means you speed regularly.

Without this assumption, the conclusion doesn’t hold.
   1   2   3 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts